I got lucky (I think) last night and one of the theatres in town had seats for LORD OF THE RINGS - TWO TOWERS - so a friend and I went to see it (it had started yesterday in my town).

I won't offer any spoilers (I hope) - and take my opinion with a grain of salt - as I am not a LOTR fan. I tried to read the first book and only got through 250 pages in agony, so that will tell you how much of a fan I am! That said, I saw the first LOTR movie twice, understood it and enjoyed it very much.

However, I can't say the same for #2. It hopped back and forth between three and four different story lines and I found it quite confusing. Perhaps if I knew the characters a bit more, I would have had a better understanding.

Also, as a personal quirk, I'm not a huge fan of some of the computer generated FX in films today and this movie is full of them, so that disappointed me a bit. Especially Merrin and Pippin (sp? on both). They were carried around so much, I thought the actors had injuries.

Frodo and Sam (Elijah Wood and 'Rudy') meet up with a character that reminded me of a rabid DOBBY from HP. I quickly grew tired of him.

I know this is probably sacreligious to not like LOTR, but while it was full of action sequences (lots of computer generated stuff in that too), I guess I was expecting something else.

However, I know I'm probably the only person on the face of the earth to not like this film, because every reviewer that sees it (with one exception) talks about it being an OSCAR contender, GLOBE contender, and every other award contender possible.

Just wondered if there was anyone else that saw it and am I totally, completely alone?

Mark M
Scooter Productions

I think the movie is really for the hardcore LOTR fans. From what I hear it follows the books fairly well, but at the same time, the movie versions leave out a lot of discriptions that help make sense of the complicated story line.

As far is the CG goes....I think it is nessecery for the story telling in the LOTR movies. Tolkien wrote about such strange and complex subjects, which can only really be portrayed through CG. If you think about the shots through out the movie, there aren't many where puppets or extras would have been suficent or effective. Thats probably why it was never made into a movie until now.

I agree with you on all counts. I don't know how they could have pulled off the scenes without CG. I guess I'm just old fashioned.

I like some CG stuff (sci-fi, etc.). I suppose the bottom line is that I'm just not a LOTR fan.

Oh well. I just read it made $26M on opening day. I should make such a film!

Mark M
Scooter Productions

Gollum was really well done. The actor did an incredible job and the CG for him is amazing.

I loved the film. But then again I love the books too.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

Well I thought they were both nicely done. I think Peter Jackson has done a great job interweaving the sub-plots together to make it easier for most viewers to follow. I would like to see what he makes after LOTR.

Having not read the books, and based on the 250 pages that I did manage to read - I also applaud Peter Jackson on putting this together. What a monumental task he had and in that sense, I would take my hat off to him.

It will indeed be interesting to know what his next project will be.

Mark M
Scooter Productions

I'm with Chris. I'm a fan of the books and I really liked the movie.

I love the LOTR books, they are one of the greatest pieces of literature out there...but, I was rather disappointed with Two Towers. It seemed to have lost alot of the magic which made Fellowship such an enjoyable movie to watch.

I don't understand why a lot of people are saying Two Towers is an oscar contendor. Only plausible reason I think is that there was SO much hype that movie just couldn't be less than expected, and people just wanted to stick with what they THOUGHT it would be.

I would give it 3.5, maybe 4 stars MAX. (out of 5). The CGI i thought wasn't that good, seemed to animated. Except for Gollum, who was phenomenol in every aspect. The last battle wasn't really interesting to watch, as it didn't have anything truly unique in it (except for the subject matter) and had its share of bad CG and editing. I mean, when a certain wall exploded, it looked horendous (sp).

Besides Gangs of New York which has the two worst cuts in all of editing history, Two Towers had its share of "transitions" if you could call them that, which seemed to me as if the movie was just hastily put together from a bunch of scenes.

I was hoping for something more in Two Towers. Hopefully Return of the King will make up for it and end the LOTR story in a marvelous spectacle. We just have to wait another year (while Two Towers wasn't worth the wait).

I dont know whast you guys are on about. I thought the The Fellowship of the Rings was great and The Two Towers just as good, if not better!

I liked both LOTR installments in theatres, but I did find them a bit choppy and occasionally confusing. The extended version of Fellowship inserts a few key scenes and a lot of transitional shots and runs much more fluidly. I'm sure the same will be true for Two Towers.

I dont know what you people are thinking!!! Two towers was one of the greatest cinematic moments of my life this year!

You're beautiful, just touch it.

Yeah good films. Deserved a best director nomination.

I disagree that the movies are for the hardcore fans. That kind of thing would never get through marketing. Also, I'm not a hardcore fan and I thoroughly enjoyed both films.